hoy added a comment. In D102356#2760973 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2760973>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D102356#2758371 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2758371>, @hoy wrote: > >> In D102356#2758179 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2758179>, @dblaikie >> wrote: >> >>> This was previously crashing, I guess? Testing should validate the behavior >>> beyond the crash, though - (presumably there's some more specific behavior >>> than "does not crash" that wasn't being tested for before - that certain >>> names are mangled appropriately or what-have-you) >> >> Yes, an assert was triggered related to c++ constructors/destructors while >> it's not now. Regarding the behavior, c++ constructors/destructors are not >> static, so I don't expect a behavior change. > > ctors/dtors can have internal linkage, if the type has internal linkage (if > it's in an anonymous namespace) - but in any case, my point was that there's > some specific behavior you're expecting, even if that behavior is "does not > get this attribute" - previously no code tested that with this feature > enabled the ctor wouldn't get the attribute (because it couldn't've tested > that, because what it did was crash) - so testing that would be good. > > But testing the attribute does work on the ctor of a type in an anonymous > namespace would be suitable too. Good to know that ctors/dtors can have internal linkage. How do you get that? The C++ standard doesn't allow ctors to be static. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
